On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I however quite dislike the dismissal of the possible impact. It should be > the responsibility of the person introducing the change to show that no such > impact actually exists, not just waving it off as "unbased on any evidence" > when there's no evidence presented.
So, we're talking about determining the behavior in a case that currently fails. Making it behave like a case that currently works can't but be an improvement. Making it do something that currently never happens might be better still, or it might be equivalent, or it might be worse. I just don't buy the argument that somebody's got to justify on performance grounds a decision not to allocate more memory than we currently ever allocate. That seems 100% backwards to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
